A bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna said the high court passed the directions without deciding the objection of the government department that the RTI Act did not apply to it. ''It is the specific case on behalf of the Department that the RTI Act did not apply to the organization/department. Despite the above and without deciding such an objection, the high court has directed the appellant to furnish the documents sought under the RTI Act without deciding the applicability of the RTI Act. That will be putting the cart before the horse,'' the bench said.
The apex court said the high court ought to have decided the issue concerning the applicability of the RTI Act to the organization or department first.
''We direct the high court to first decide the issue concerning the applicability of the RTI Act to the appellant organization/department and thereafter decide the stay application/LPA. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within eight weeks,'' the bench said in its recent order.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the Centre against the 2018 decision of the high court which directed the department to provide information to the employee within 15 days.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Centre had told the high court that the Department from which information was sought is exempted as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the order of the CIC is illegal and contradictory to the provisions of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts certain intelligence and security organizations from the ambit of the transparency law except for information ''about allegations of corruption and human rights violations''.
The high court had said that since the employee was facing prejudices regarding seniority, he sought information mentioned above and that the information neither hampers with intelligence nor security nor secrecy of the petitioner organization. ''Though the petitioner organization is kept away from RTI Act, but that is not regarding the information to its employee if any of his rights have been denied.
The information sought by the respondent from the petitioner does not come under Section 24 of the Act,'' the high court had said.